Hop on ebay and pick up a cheap oscilloscope. If you live in a big city, you can pick up a shitty old one for cheap, and even if you don't ever use it as a service tool, the educational value can be amazing.

Basically, computer guys like to pretend that their machines use digital signals. Sadly, there is no such thing. Real lines ring, bounce, wiggle and squirm. That applies just as much to "supply" lines as it does to "signal" lines. I put them in quotes because the circuits don't know that we call them by different names.

If you are lucky, a digital circuit acts like an AC line with all of the fun that comes with complex phase relationships. If you are unlucky, the damn things spew radio interference all over the insides of your gizmo.

Most real digital devices have bushels of capacitors strewn about. In a DC (imaginary) circuit, they eat voltage swings and spikes. In an AC (real) circuit, they change the resonant properties of the circuits. Every time you have resistance and capacitance in the same place, they act like a filter. These filters can limit circuits to low frequency oscillation, preventing RFI.

Wow. Now the question is: was your refund just a token bone to keep the wolves away, or is Yifu actually going to handle the batch 3 refunds that have piled up? Sorry, but it is really hard not to be jaded by this BS.

I have gotten my refund as well... so two is not a trend.... but it is sure more welcome than zero.

Under the circumstances, I hope you won't be too upset to learn that many people will be extremely skeptical of refund claims until a bunch of people start posting their txids.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then. This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself." Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes.

Once again, I challenge you:

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each orPurchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x! Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency. Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

Woohoo! Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

But, say we ignore that. I can still assure you that not a single solitary human being capable of rational though would pick option 2. Notice that option 2 converts 10 BTC into 5. People looking to get rid of excess BTC can donate them to charity, or send them to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. They don't need you to provide a BTC removal service.

P.S. I am "an average miner", and I have never intentionally purchased equipment that I expected would earn me less BTC than what I was spending on it.

nitpicking mode: that's not true. there is a very very very small range of numbers, which do not lift properly on the underlying elliptic curve.

nitpicking mode: that's not true. They perfectly lift on the EC, it's just that their resulting public key are shared by two private keys from the range [0,2^256-1].But as we're using Bitcoin addresses and not public keys, each address is shared by 2^96 private keys anyway so I'm rather sure that one more won't change anything...

@jackjack, you should read my article @phatsphere is correct. Almost every 256 bit number could be a private key, but according to the secp256k1 curve parameters used by Bitcoin, any number in the range of 1 to FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFE BAAEDCE6 AF48A03B BFD25E8C D0364141 - 1 could be a private key.

It is a modular field. Numbers bigger than the field order are still keys, just shitty keys.

Whenever i say "money," i mean dollars, living in US and all. All the people i converse with also mean dollars, which happen to be the legal tender of United States of America. When people from other countries use the term "money" in their conversations, they are referring to the currencies of their nations. You, on the other hand, mean something other than state-issued money. What "conversational sense" do you mean?

Languages are rarely clean. The word money has several meanings, among them are "the specific things used as money in a given time and place" and "the concept of abstract tokens of value".

I don't know what sort of conversations you have on a normal basis, but when I say money in a discussion, I usually mean the concept rather than a specific implementation. And when I do refer to the implementation, I'm typically referring to whatever the appropriate implementation happens to be at the moment, rather than the one specific implementation.

Does that make any sense? If I ask to borrow money, I may expect that loan to come in the form of little green papers, but it isn't the papers I seek, but the abstract notion of value that we place on them. In different circumstances, I may expect different tokens, but what I'm always looking for is the value.

Contract for sale is used in article 2 of the UCC as a superset, encompassing present sale.Strictly speaking, you are correct. If we engage in cat barter, i fail to render the cat due you, and you petition the Court to be made whole, the Court will award you the dollar value of the cat. You may safeguard against such trickery by further narrowing the terms of the contract by specifying the accepted payment method to be *exclusively cats,* thus making article 2 of the UCC inapplicable due to exception clause § 2-102.

If the person selling the cat fails to deliver, the court will order them to supply the cat if at all possible, and the dollar value of the cat only if the cat itself cannot be supplied. But that is backwards, because we aren't talking about cats becoming money, we are talking about BTC. Since BTC is being used as money in this transaction, the court will not insist that BTC actually be delivered.

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it. You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below. This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean? Will this money be one of the many moneys? Will this money be fungible? With other monies, e.g. dollar? Could it extinguish all debts, public & private? Will a calico tabby be an instance of this money? Will my IOU?

I mean money in the conversational sense. It isn't necessary to define it tighter for this discussion. Prior to (or in the absence of) legal tender laws, money was whatever people used as money. It would be daft to require "money" to mean "legal tender" when discussing the removal of the laws that define and specify legal tender.

A particularly lulzy consequence of bitcoin being made legal tender on par with the dollar: Legal tender is, by definition, fungible, thus the counterparty *always keeps the option to compensate you in dollars, rather than bitcoins.* As we all know, the FED prints as many dollars as it darn pleases. You propose to devalue bitcoin by putting it on par with that paper trash. Are you a FED infiltrator?

Where on earth did you get the notion of granting legal tender status to bitcoin? And why would it be at par value? I talk about removing legal tender status from federal reserve notes, so that people can insist on getting paid in bitcoins, or whatever else they want.

Remove the notion of legal tender altogether? Why would a state wish to devalue its currency by openly stating that its currency is no better than Monopoly money? Or do you feel the value of the dollar will skyrocket upon such an announcement? I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

No state would. Are you aware of which thread you are reading? It isn't the "which states want to give up their monopoly on free money" thread, it is the "what would need to happen for a state to give up their monopoly on free money if they wanted to, which none of them do" thread.

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin. Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

Well its only inflatacoin for a while, eventually that new supply relative to the amount in the world would be really really small and its likely their would be a equilibrium point where the value of Bitcoin starts to deflate like we have now.

The big difference is inflatacoin can continue past 100 years. You all think Bitcoin can work past 100 years but it won't, with all the offchain payments systems that are coming online transactions fees will not be enough to secure the network. And if they do secure the network it will be because only a large whale can make a transaction.

You aren't adding anything to the discussion. Many have made the same claims you are making, and the matter has been debated endlessly elsewhere.

This is not a technical discussion, so it does not belong here, it belongs in economics. However, in economics, there are probably dozens threads over the years from people proposing this exact idea.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just letting you know that your ideas are not new, and if you'd like to know what the community thinks of them, you should read the other threads on this subject.

Contract for sale is used in article 2 of the UCC as a superset, encompassing present sale.Strictly speaking, you are correct. If we engage in cat barter, i fail to render the cat due you, and you petition the Court to be made whole, the Court will award you the dollar value of the cat. You may safeguard against such trickery by further narrowing the terms of the contract by specifying the accepted payment method to be *exclusively cats,* thus making article 2 of the UCC inapplicable due to exception clause § 2-102.

If the person selling the cat fails to deliver, the court will order them to supply the cat if at all possible, and the dollar value of the cat only if the cat itself cannot be supplied. But that is backwards, because we aren't talking about cats becoming money, we are talking about BTC. Since BTC is being used as money in this transaction, the court will not insist that BTC actually be delivered.

A particularly lulzy consequence of bitcoin being made legal tender on par with the dollar: Legal tender is, by definition, fungible, thus the counterparty *always keeps the option to compensate you in dollars, rather than bitcoins.* As we all know, the FED prints as many dollars as it darn pleases. You propose to devalue bitcoin by putting it on par with that paper trash. Are you a FED infiltrator?

Where on earth did you get the notion of granting legal tender status to bitcoin? And why would it be at par value? I talk about removing legal tender status from federal reserve notes, so that people can insist on getting paid in bitcoins, or whatever else they want.

Sorry if it offends, but people labeling their personal wild ass ideas "Bitcoin 2.0" creates confusion.

Confusion? Just because we have several Bitcoin 2.0s to consider before we even have a Bitcoin 1.0*?

Really, this particular Bitcoin 2.0 is just inflatacoin. Changes to the subsidy do not belong here, although they've been discussed and debated to death in several other places, so I'm not sure if there is any appropriate place left on these forums to restate the notion unless one comes up with some novel ideas or arguments.

And Bitcoin 3.0, as described here, has been proposed several times as well. I couldn't find the specific threads if you paid me, but I know I've read those exact same ideas before. Probably several times, actually, hard to keep track when all of the details of implementation are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

All that is necessary for bitcoin to take over in some area is for the local courts to enforce contracts as written. People wanting sound money will specify payment in bitcoin.

The emboldened text describes the current state of affairs -- nothing needs to be changed. If i wish to sell you a cat for twenty dollars, i would make out a contract specifying a twenty dollar payment for the cat (not my cat, my cat likes it here). Alternatively, i can specify "20BTC" in the contract, or "twenty Chuck-E-Cheese coins." The court will treat those contracts with all appropriate vigor & gravity. Even the IRS will want a cut. In dollars. What would you like to happen differently?

As far as people wanting sound money, there is nothing stopping them from specifying bitcoin today. All are welcome to sell houses for dollars *or* bitcoins. As long as they pay taxes in dollars. If you wish to be able to pay taxes in bitcoins or Chuck E. Cheese coins, i'm afraid you're out of luck.

No, this is most emphatically not the state of affairs anywhere in the world today.

If the contract for sale specifies 1 cat for 20 BTC, and you pay that value in dollars, I can not refuse the payment and sue you for the BTC. If you don't pay at all and I have to take you to court, the court will not insist that you deliver the BTC, they will insist that you deliver enough dollars to match the value of the BTC.

Note that an instant sale is not the same as a contract for sale (see article 2 of the UCC). For an instant sale, the seller can refuse to deliver unless paid in the manner they prefer (see here). But, in a contract for sale, the buyer has the option to pay in dollars, regardless of what the contract says. This is the very essence of being legal tender. Further note that in the US, gold has special status since October 27th, 1977 because of 31 USC 5118 which re-enables gold clauses.

1. Restore the right to contract. 2. Wait.* grant bitcoin the same status as the state's legal tender (my, possibly incorrect, rewording of the rest of kjj post)

Not sure what (1) means, and (2) is a truism (if we subscribe to such metaphysical notions as "flux implies time").The rest of the post (the part i've rephrased & marked with an asterix & confused smileys) is both nonsensical and financially suicidal.Nonsensical since bitcoin is, by design, non-centralized & unbacked by states -- unlike legal tender.Financially suicidal because if a state puts bitcoin on the same legal footing as its own fiat -- establishing a constant exchange rate between the two (let's say $100=1BTC) -- it enters into a lose/lose bargain: If bitcoin goes up in value, bitcoins will be exchanged privately, at the higher exchange rate. If it goes down, the state is obligated to exchange bitcoins at $100 to 1BTC. In other words, the state is *forced to become a guarantor of bitcoin value* I wish there was an exchange that did something like that, i'd be filthy rich

People have strange ideas about money's legal status.

Legal tender laws basically only do one thing: courts will consider debts paid in the named currency to be paid, regardless of the denomination specified in the contract. As in, if I sell my house for 150 ounces of gold, but the buyer gives me a check for the cash value instead, I can't sue. As far as the law is concerned, the contract has been satisfied.

This is the only thing special about, for example, the US dollar. That the dollar comes from the US government is incidental. Without the backing of the courts, no one would have switched from the old dollars (gold and silver coins) to the new ones (Federal reserve notes).

All that is necessary for bitcoin to take over in some area is for the local courts to enforce contracts as written. People wanting sound money will specify payment in bitcoin.

I followed Gavin's example. I created 3 vanity testnet addresses and took 1.5 test bitcoins from the faucet. I followed the example and created a 2 of 3 multisig with "value" : 0.01000000 sent from n18BfALhuJ4cXAtTDSMLSpiRjLvB6czXP8 to 2MuiZNuQR2vEmCq81XRTGRSHNETUGxEWR3C, but it sent the entire balance of 1.5 instead of 0.1. I have not yet imported the vanity addresses into a client to recover the test bitcoins. What happened to the change?

Transactions are redeemed in full. When using the raw API, you are responsible for making your own change.

In this case, your inputs total 1.5 and out outputs total 0.01. The difference, 1.49, is the fee.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were real world tests, plain and simple. The fire-storm bombings of Tokyo http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm had already broken the japanese spirit and several more civilian attacks like these over the other big Japanese cities would have likely caused the same desired surrender outcome that was needed to stop the horrific island fighting as the Allies advanced on the mainland.